Another GC Employment Tribunal: Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #4

[nauticant]

Roz Adams was employed by Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) as a counsellor. She is claiming constructive dismissal for Gender Critical (GC) beliefs. The CEO of ERCC is a well known transwoman known for, among other things, controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

There's live tweeting from https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets or if Twitter doesn't show the tweets, look at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets. There's an informative substack here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre

This post explains how to get access to watch the hearing: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2?page=24&reply=132419912

Abbreviations:
J: Employment Judge McFatridge
RA: Roz Adams, the claimant
NC: Naomi Cunningham, barrister for the claimant
ERCC or R: Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, the respondent
DH: David Hay KC, barrister for the respondent
KM or KT: Katy McTernan, ERCC Senior management
MR: Mairi Rosko, ERCC Board Member
MS: Miren Sagues, ERCC Board Member
KH: Katie Horburgh, ERCC Board Member
AB: ERCC staff member (name redacted)
NCi: Nico Ciubotariu, COO of ERCC
MW: Mridul Wadhwa, CEO of ERCC
BP: Beira's Place

RA gave evidence over 15-18 January 2024.

Witnesses:
Nicole Jones (NJ): 18 January 2024 (on behalf of RA)
Mairi Rosko (MR): 19 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katy McTernan (referred to both as KT and KM): 22-23 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Miren Sagues (MS): 24 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)
Katie Horburgh (KH): 24 January 2024 (on behalf of ERCC)

Thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4985570-another-gc-employment-tribunal-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crsis
Thread #2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4988632-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-2
Thread #3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4990903-another-gc-employment-tribunal-roz-adams-vs-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-3

Witness agrees that maybe not the best way to put it and that it shouldn't have been shared

If a tm or a female nb came in who'd just been raped, would they discuss the possibility of pregnancy? Offer birth control? If a tw? What would they do then?

NC got witness to admit that MW shared/outed a rape survivor which is against the policy of disclosing sensitive rape info

witness is having a real hard time dealing with the question

Troubling attitude from MW about privacy of a survivor?

Maybe shouldn't have been shared

Unacceptable?

Disagree.

NC Outing this person as a survivor to all staff at centre. Agree is unacceptable.

MS yes. not the best way. Maybe it shouldn't have been shared.

NC completely unacceptable

MS I think what MW was trying to do..

NC answer q. Exposing to whole staff team completely unacceptable.

MS disagree. not completely unacceptable

[eventually agrees yes, shouldn't have been shared at all]

Excellent another agreement

MS criticised MW, NC tried to get her to confirm this, MS is squirming and trying to back out. The point NC was making is that MW can do things far more serious that RA's "misbehaviour" but held wholly unaccountable.

My first day of observing. Are they all this scared of MW?

NC is doing a brilliant job of showing how in thrall they all are to the trans-identifying CEO.

witness is squirming quite a bit trying to get out of this

Either scared or have prioritised the defence of MW above all else Datdamndamp.

That and/or they've swallowed the trans inclusive policy wholesale and not engaged their brain at all.

NC RA asks why she was disciplined as opposed to senior mgt who did something similar. You didn't accept it.

MS No, RA comparing her hurt and humilation of AB to MW potentially breaching confidentiality. MW in email shared info re someone close to her, it wasn't data from ercc so MW not bound by confidentiality. It was different, nothing to do with RA's case.

this is going very badly ( like it hasn't already many times ) for ERCC

.

witness is now trying to squeeze out of it by flip flopping through cracks

He who must not be crossed.

The witness must want this to JUST END

Difference is MW talked about a family member!

Oh well that's alright then!

Thanks to everyone typing as the tribunal proceeds, it's really helpful and interesting.

So NC is proving that ERCC discriminated against RA for her beliefs, which are WORIADS? And that the CEO is a man.

Fantastic.

Terrible example for CEO to set?

She trusted info with team

NC RA was being generous in her comparison. Her email didn't tell any colleague anything they didn't already know.

MS Not simliar. RA shared info agst data policy and didn't obey instructions.

MS MW shouldn't have shared but it was about her own experiences

NC This isn't MW using own experiences, but talking c a family member. Okay to share family members sex assault experiences?

MS Difference between sharing info among people you trust and sharing info which breaches org policy

NC it was a terrible eg for CEO to set to junior staff

MS MW was trying to express her opinions c the issue, trusts her whole team, she believed she was in a trusting envirnoment.

Same here - I never thought I would need any more except perhaps "y un paquete de chips de queso y cebolla"

<Thanks Google translate>

This witness is showing up the hypocrisy of how certain staff were treated over others wonderfully.

Also that board members find it difficult to acknowledge fault on the part of the CEO - they aren't able to operate as the oversight system they're supposed to be.